@@thehouseoftransit2719 Me too, considering that the lack of RV service killed the first Forward Thrust proposal. There was another study from the 1980s that had a Duwamish section as well that was voted down so they came back with the RV segment later. The old planning and study documents are really interesting because that study from the 80s suggested two lines going south, one that went elevated on Rainier Ave down to the Tukwilia Sounder Station, and one that went through the RV, down SR99 to Star Lake.
For short term solution I really want ST to put fencing along the alignment and add crossing guards at every crossing so that train speed limits can be *increased*
When the 1 line was first being built in the 2000s, we questioned why it looped off course all the way into rainier valley, which had excellent bus service anyways at the time. I wish they built the bypass route from the start, and just utilized existing bus routes at the time to connect to the stations. Great video!
I love the buses but the link is way better. It's good that it goes through populated areas, it's not meant to be like a regional rail. But all the at grade crossings, without even gates at least, are inexcusable.
@ IIRC, it's because the community demanded that they not be used. I get the concern of not wanting the area to have a train yard feel, but there are other at grade parts of the system between Beacon Hill and the stadiums that do have more warnings.
SeattleSubway has this bypass express route on their vision map, which is heavy influencing Seattle's long range wish list, and makes sense to improve the speed of the regional spine. They also have the West Seattle branch going down to Tukwilla International Blvd which if that were to be extended first and run to the airport instead likely would also be a faster option than going via Rainier Valley as it'll likely be a fully grade separated route.
I was looking at this line the other day and wondered about the same bypass strategy, but your video is so much more detailed and fleshed out! Awesome work
Thank you! This video is extremely well researched! I was very surprised to see you mention the airport busway. Another thing to note is that there is actually a siding to the south of SeaTac/Airport Station, so if it’s needed to save costs you can have a line end right there in the existing station and pull into the siding for turnarounds and layovers.
You can't fix stupid. There's no reason why there are all of these crashes, there are signs and there are alarms and yet, people can't figure out that there's a train coming. I do agree that it would have been better to just build this grade separated to begin with, but it was hard enough to get the funding to build this to begin with.
Shoreline suburbanite, I'm not excited for the one line to split which will cause me to need two+ seats to reach the airport. The split you propose would be a net time saver going to the airport which should garner more support than the people in the new line's walkshed. I like it!
i think an mlk bypass is a great idea! i think adding an extra line in this way would also help with the overcrowding we will no doubt see once link is extended to FW
I had this same idea, but I would pass the freeway corridor in Tukwila completely to avoid the curves, not to mention there is no station there. And there's is a compelling plot of land close to the Tukwila Library ( although will probably be developed soon)
Seattle needs to get its old tram network back desperately. Seattle is nearly as big and sprawling as Melbourne or Sydney, with almost none of the public transport, and no real distinction between trains, trams and light rail. Whatever the mode of transit the city has, it isnt enough
Fun Fact -Seattle bought 5 heritage trolleys from Melbourne decades ago, and ran a streetcar line along the waterfront. The cars were beautiful, and this was a successful tourist ride along the Seattle waterfront. But in 2005 the city abandoned the Benson trolly line, never to return.
i have to give you credit - this is much more well-researched than most such proposals (i often see proposals that we decommission the rainier valley segment entirely and solely run a bypass... which...... ignoring massive minority communities because its kinda inconvenient? not a good look..). i do have notes, if i may! 1. a valley bypass has been proposed lots of times, with a major issue: south park and georgetown have, like, 10k people and and a few thousand jobs combined, while othello alone comes close to beating that. of course, sound transit's excellent track record with TOD would likely help with this, but this part is a clear reason why the 1 line is routed the way it is. 2. this is more of a nitpick, but saying link isnt rapid transit seems off to me. a small section of its route not being separated only slows the trip down by 5-10 minutes, and thats if youre passing through the area at all. through and north of seattle it still consistently outpaces every other form of transportation, and if theres traffic (which there almost always is) it does even through and past the rainier valley! 3. converting the existing track into a tramway isnt a bad idea, but link using it seems iffy to me. there was a recent study that showed that a trenched grade separation option would be the most cost-efficient, and if that cut into the lanes, it could retain existing tracks, which could be used as a tramway. we can do these things in tandem! 4. to better integrate with future projects and avoid redundancy that would drive up costs for minimal benefit, i would run (what, in my daydreaming, is the 5 Line) from seatac/airport, along the existing 1 line alignment instead of through central tukwila, and follow your route through downtown, but split off at SLU station and become the long-awaited aurora link project. this would make the 1 line's routing more efficient while giving the 5 line a more direct alignment
@@sdrx902 It’s certainly no wonder the line was routed where it was. The Forward Thrust proposal from the 60s had a line to Renton running via East Marginal Way, which… wasn’t the greatest alignment choice. That being said I do think South Park and Georgetown stations could perform alright with good development. I was using “rapid transit” there as its secondary definition which is to say a fully grade separated heavy metro. Much of Link functions as that kind of rapid transit but it isn’t true rapid transit. The study that came out a few months ago was kinda bogus but I do think there are a lot of good options for what can be done with the corridor.
You talk about not ignoring minority communities, but then you say that South Park and Georgetown are too small population wise to be deserving of light rail. So sure, let's keep ignoring the two most marginalized communities in all of Seattle. I think the proposal to serve these communities with non-car-dependent transit is long long overdue.
@@cobaltblue42 theres a difference between not serving communities in the hundreds of thousands and not serving communities in the... ones of thousands? like i said in my comment, i support doing this, but not at the cost of serving larger communities, which only adds, like, 3 minutes assuming grade separation
@ by your logic, almost all the new stations along the 1 line's north and south expansions shouldn't be built, since the local walksheds to many of those stations are in the low thousands. And there are few neighborhoods anywhere in the Puget Sound that have populations in the hundreds of thousands lol, and the time difference is a lot more than 3 minutes as pointed out in the video. Your arguments really don't hold muster and come off as an overt attempt to continue to ignore two marginalized minority communities that have been and continue to be overlooked by all levels of government for any sort of investment.
I’m not super familiar with Seattle’s system (yet), but this was a super well done video. I’m glad I discovered your channel through this contest, and I look forward to watching more of your videos! But I will say for others in the comments that the problems your video talked with the at-grade light rail on MLK are not unique to Seattle. These sorts of problems frequently plague light rail systems that run at-grade. That’s one of multiple reasons why I strongly favor light rail to be grade-separated as much as possible. Yes, it’s more expensive to build, but it’s safer for everyone, provides faster trains, and therefore provides higher ridership (high enough that I wonder if the extra fare box revenue negates the extra cost of building grade-separated in the long run).
@@RallyingforRail There are also ways to do this style of light rail that are considerably safer. Systems in Alberta and Charlotte for example use much wider medians with fencing and crossing gates to keep traffic separate from the light rail lines. At the point that you start doing a lot of grade separation might as well build a proper metro
What's unfair is that the vast majority of Seattle's system is grade-separated. The only part that isn't is the section through one of the poorer areas of the city. Wealthier areas up north have subway stations.
@@garysimonson1135 To be fair, those wealthier areas also pay more in taxes to support the system. That's not to say that I'm a fan of any part of the system being at grade, but it's not like those other areas aren't contributing more to fund this or that there aren't a bunch of areas that have effectively been paying for service that they didn't have any use for. It was only last year that the stations got as far as I am, but we've been paying taxes to support this for decades at this point and there's other places that still haven't received an real advantage from the system, but are paying taxes the way that people that have benefited do.
Metro could extend the A Line a couple stops up TIB for a super frequent and fast connection to the station, and then the bypass could branch from the Site B of BAR Station. This could also make the A Line more relevant and make less people suggest to get rid of it after FWLE is opened
This is a great idea and not a bad strategy in that is supports both local neighborhood development and airport to downtown connections. Doing both would not have been feasible early on.
One note: The original ST plans wanted to have the trains elevated through MLK. It was the general public that demanded tunneling over the elevated trains as they deemed it too unsightly, and too long of a construction time. As the project didn't have enough funding for a massive tunnel at that time, they compromised for it to be at-grade. Yeah... seriously, the residents REALLY didn't want elevated tracks.
Not a bad plan though. It would be nice of being able to build a better solution without affecting current routes. Plus, having two lines would allow better maintenance. Too bad, this likely wouldn't even start getting built until 2045 at the bare minimum.
I lived in the valley all during proposal and construction. I bet you wouldn't vote in a hundred years for an elevated rail line to be put over your house and neighborhood if you had the possibility of something at grade or below. Just shocking that you talk like we were stupid not to want that.
This part should be grade separated and the entire Link Light Rail needs to be automated like Vancouver's Skytrain (along with 3-5 minute headways). This is the only way Seattle is going to catch up.
@ Well Link isn’t a Tram but theoretically you could extend Seattle Streetcar down Rainier to Mount Baker and then down MLK to a turnaround south of Rainier Beach. There are a ton of streets that would be great for a future streetcar network
@ Yeah, in reality I would much rather have Seattle Streetcar branch from Jackson and go down Rainier to Mount Baker and then continue going down Rainier, I think that since we have a local and limited service on MLK, Rainier would be much better for a new streetcar (and they are getting RapidRide R Line), but simply for the sake of this conversation I proposed MLK.
I’ve been saying this since the line first opened up. It’s so Seattle to want to build the slowest and sketchiest possible way for people to get from the airport to downtown in the name of social engineering (routing it through RV). It’s rarely quicker to take Link vs. driving. Hopefully something along these lines comes to pass. And if it routes through South Park and Georgetown, they better not add 5 stations between the airport and wherever it links up south of downtown. Seattle is a world class city, it deserves a world class rail system.
That depends where you're coming from. Most of the time when I've taken it, it's been about the same, just without the time spent worrying about parking or the additional cost to park. I would expect them to eventually redo that section to raise that portion of the line up. It would be expensive and take some time, but for the period that's being done, they could probably run a shuttle to bypass that section.
I kind of like it but I'd rather have it a Line 1A (Rainier Valley) and a Line 1B (Georgetown/Duwamish) 1B would split as you mentioned, at the South Boeing Access Rd Station alternative but here lays the main issue I have - There is no easy way to cross the Duwamish River to access South Park and the guideway along Boeing Field/East Marginal Way must accommodate upwards of a 747-8 which isn't as bad as a bridge but at least 70 feet tall at multiple locations but long/wide column spacing of at least 240 feet wide to give room for the wingspan and tail at multiple locations. One possible route would be straddling the West side of East Marginal Way South , closing S 104th Street to use as the guideway alignment, cross the river between S 98th Street and South 102nd Street, utilizing a bit of the Amazon property and follow Hwy 99 on the East side to 14th Ave S with a station between South Henderson St and South Trenton St to service the South Park community. This would allow enough room to build a bridge of 120 feet over the Duwamish and connect to E Marginal Way South before turning Corson Ave South, with a station straddling South Findlay St and South Homer St, along Corson Ave South and Airport Way South to serve the Georgetown community. Leaving this location, the guideway would go down 8th Ave South, over a bridge to the West of Airport Way South, then briefly follow the BNSF right of way along NW Containers. This can be joint freight railroad and light-rail operations or separated (freight only does switching at night here) before connecting into E-3 Busway. This would then connect at the new SODO hub station that would service all 3 routes (Line 1A/B, Line 3). This would only require demoing the USPS Seattle Annex (which I believe is already slated for Line 3) for the new platform, construction of new crosswalks for ease of movement between both platforms. Overall - One playfield removed or modified (Georgetown) to accommodate station footprint. 4 commercial buildings removed, zero residential as far as I can tell 2 large bridges (One over Duwamish, one over BNSF), 1 small bridge (over Duwamish) - fully elevated until over the BNSF, grade separated surface running from BNSF main to ST 1 Line at Lander St. SODO to Boeing Access RD - 10~ minutes w/3 elevated stations (BAR, South Park, Georgetown) Designed for 55mph the 95% of the entire segment Retains the 1A line with adding BAR and Graham Street Stations Adds low waist level fencing and vehicle and pedestrian crossing gate arms along Rainier Valley - Increases speed to 35mph (10mph above road limit) About 2 to 2.5 years of construction. Would utilize a guideway crane with precast girders to speed up construction timeline. On surface route, concrete ties and ballast, with a singular OCS pole in the middle of the 2 main tracks to reduce footprint and reduce cost until SODO station. A guestimate on cost would be right around $1.25 to $1.625 billion for the 1B segment and about $50-80 million for the Rainier Valley items (including Graham Station). This is using the current national average for elevated light-rail construction and historical figures from Sound Transit, Tri-Met, LA Metro, and Phoenix METRO. Call it 2 billion and both would be done by 2036 if funded locally via LID or some other method of tax payment. The longest portion of this will be the EIS/design process of about 3 to 6 years. Yes, really.
If I understand correctly, the intention is to redirect the Link 1 Line on to the new, grade seperate alignment to access new areas of the city currently underserved by transit. Then, “Convert” the previous at-grade segment to something more akin to a Rainier Valley Streetcar, similar to the South Lake Union & First Hill Streetcars. Appears like a Solid agenda. Grade separating along MLK would not increase potential riders in the catchment area and could be considered “Throwing good money after bad”. However, with this proposal, transit coverage is increased and the prior investments are repurposed rather than abandoned.
Not to be too cold hearted, but how stupid do you have to be to be hit by a train? It's not like they swerve out of the way or speed up unexpectedly and there's a bunch of lights and bells to warn people that they're coming.
@SmallSpoonBrigade first of all, there is not a lot of lights and bells in this case, that's one of the problems. There's not even gates that go down automatically, or even manual gates. But also, numerous people get hit here and will continue to, no matter how anyone may rationalize that it's the victims fault. In a city, infrastructure needs to be designed for its human inhabitants, and that includes people who may otherwise get hit by a train.
@@muphart I forgot about that. IIRC, the community complained that they didn't want that when it was being designed. The stretch that's at grade that I've spent more time near is closer to the stadiums where there are lights and alarms when trains are coming.
Great video! An amazing proposal for a Airport bypass line that I'm a big proponent of. I think one annoyance is that if the bypass is built first, almost no way the Rainier Valley line ever gets grade separated. If the Rainier Valley line is grade separated first, it would be a huge disruption and almost no way the bypass or additional infill station on the Valley line get added. I think the Valley line would need to be tied into an extension to Renton or elsewhere (not redundant airport connection) to actually get grade separate after a bypass line (even though the replacement of the rental car bus is genius). I had previously seen a bypass line proposal that just went all the way up E Marginal Way and over to 4th to connect with the SODO line across the rail yard. That alignment would be way cheaper and probably less of a fight, but actually providing access for South Park and Georgetown directly definitely presents better than just bypassing Rainier Valley. Definitely a cool discussion.
@@jbteal I could see additional infills being added along with a bypass, though grade separation probably becomes less likely. A rail connection to Renton is warranted, whether via this line or another
As someone who couldn’t believe what final design of the light rail line became I have one question for you. If they couldn’t build it right the first time, what makes you think they’ll do it right the next time? Also, eliminating that section of 99 won’t be nearly as easy as you think.
What makes me think they can do it right is they've demonstrated they can properly design light rail lines with the rest of the system. Outside of the Rainier Valley, Link far and away has the highest-quality light rail infrastructure of any system in the United States. Removing 99 is as easy as we want it to be. There are plenty of alternatives.
@@thehouseoftransit2719 link light rail could have been so much more but there are people like you calling what we got a success is making it doomed for the future. I and others could spend hours showing the limitations of the design but you’ll never believe it. Because you don’t want to. And no ripping up 99 won’t be as cheap or as easy as you think. Not even close.
In my head this would be called the “Airporter” as it would stop near BFI and SeaTac. I love the idea to integrate the new terminal/rental car transit mode as well. ST4? Let’s package this with a Golden Gardens to Magnuson route on the northside.
This is so needed, as it stands the street level portion just ruins the amount of ridership the LR could have. What are people going to choose when going to the airport? A 20-40 minute car ride, or an hour long LR ride? If we want less traffic we seriously need to prioritize removing the reliance on ride share cars (and pick up/drop off cars that are empty for half the leg) driving to the airport.
Whenever I have looked at the time from where I live to the airport either via light rail or car, the difference has been either minimal or with light rail getting there faster. Perhaps if you live further from a station or closer to the airport that might be different, but there just hasn't been enough of a time savings by going via a car to justify then having to deal with the zoo at the drop off or parking. I do wish they would install something more efficient to move people from the station at the airport to the terminal, but what we've got is actually pretty good, far better than what some other commenters seem to think.
@@_some__guy_ I think taking the line so far south makes sense if trains can get into Seattle quickly! As currently planned that won’t really be possible. As for the TTC streetcar expansion I’ve heard proposals to run the line down 6th which I think would be a lot more useful than the planned route on 19th. Either way it should have dedicated lanes
@@thehouseoftransit2719 I'm not sure speed is the major reason to have the Tacoma Dome extension. Having a way into the Seattle area that isn't focused on commuters (Sounder with its issues with using BNFS tracks) and the into Seattle AM trains and the out-of Seattle PM trains would benefit Tacoma. It could move shoppers to Seattle and air passengers to and from the airport (SEA). As a retired person, I would use it to get into Seattle occasionally and to the airport if need be. Right now I use Pierce Transit busses and the T line to get to medical appointments. Not having to drive on I-5 would be a major benefit to me personally and would help remove some traffic from the road. The Draft EIS for the Tacoma Dome Extension is currently out for comment.
@@kenglover2690 I absolutely agree! Link provides higher frequencies and better reliability than Sounder and express bus alternatives, but time-competitiveness is still key. Operating a line all the way to Tacoma via MLK Way just doesn’t really make sense
I think lack of proper bus service and sparse bus schedule (every 20-30min at peak times) serving the Link light rail is much bigger problem than anything else.
@@gregfawcett5152 the starter line is already open and will be extended to Redmond in May. The full connection across Lake Washington is projected to open by the end of the year!
1. The alignment should be along commercial streets outside of town, not just simply be treated like a commuter rail along the existing interstate. 2. Street alignments should be elevated. 3. They need more frequent trains, not longer trains. Vancouver SkyTrain has 90 second(!) headways. Link 1 Line can barely make 10 *minutes.* 4. The station number thing is stupid. Nobody is going to use that. They're also setting themselves up for a mess if they ever add interstitial stations. Every metro in the world does fine with station names. 5. Screwing up the eastside connection to the main line is a horribly epic fail, especially considering how badly they've mangled the ST550. Now it's at least 20 months behind schedule for people to use the thing from the 2 line to the 1 line. 6. The line names are stupid especially when they're already coloring them -- just call them Green Line and Blue Line (although Central Link and East Link were already perfectly fine names too). 7. Why the hell are they wasting money running the 2 line with no connection to Seattle? Who is actually using that? There's no way that's remotely pragmatic. 8. Fundamentally, like nearly all other public services in the county, they need to be run by people who actually want to do things right instead of by people who want to hear an idea once and decide it's amazing and then pat themselves on the back for how forward-thinking they are, especially when half the bad proposals they come up with never even get finished.
@justsamoo3480 Also an option, though there isn’t necessarily a good route between Rainier Beach and Renton so we tend to think a Sounder branch is the better option
@@thehouseoftransit2719 You could have a transfer point at Boeing access valley road with cross platform transfers and then have your proposed route going to the center of Tukwilla, while the Renton line continues down I-5, diverging from it at the mega I-5, 405 and state road 518 highway junction. The line could then run along 405 to Renton or at a new elevated alignment through Westfield parking lots and Strander Blvd to Tukwilla Sounder station. From then on there are many options to reach downtown Renton. This line is a bit circuitous, however I don’t think it would impact the travel time too much, since It would be fully grade separated. Another option is an alignment running down Interurban Avnue and then crossing the Duwamish river to reach the already existing railway alignment to Renton. The link between SeaTac and the junction could be then be used for a new circumferential line between Federal Way/Tacoma to not only Renton but the line could also be extended down 405 or the old railway alignment to the current line 2/future line 4 running to Bellevue and South Kirkland
@@thehouseoftransit2719 instead of replacing the airport rental car bus (an amazing idea btw), take the Valley line south on International Blvd, interline through Tukwila International Station for the short east/west segment of the 1 line, split across I-5 to put a station at Strander/Andover Park, station adjacent to Tukwila Sounder, Station at Lind/19th, station at Grady/Lake near the future Renton Stride station, Station at Burnett/3rd, up Logan with a terminus near The Landing. Now you have a Renton/Rainer Valley Line
@@thehouseoftransit2719 What if they dig the power lines under ground and use that right of way for the light rail through Bryn Mawr-Skyway to reach Renton?
@@ikea_wizard tunneling under MLK would be a good long term goal, but it doesn’t really address the speed challenges as that segment still has a lot of stops
Placing tracks in the street for a system like this is usually the result of trying to satisfy everyone's concerns - with the end result not really making anyone happy.
Care to draw this out in a site like MetroDreamin for those that follow along better that way? Also would show who the industrial neighbors are who might have issues with pillars and whatnot.
I just don’t understand how no one at ST foresaw the problem with such a long at grade section. 🤦♂️ it should have been an tennel, open top tunnel or elevated rail. It would have been more expensive, but definitely would haves saved lives and travel time.
It wouldn't save that much time. It's like 20 minutes along the stretch that's at grade all the way to the airport. You'd save like 10 minutes tops. Which does add up, but it's hardly the sort of time savings that people are suggesting. I do think that they should eventually do something about it, but the reality is that it's not something that is or should be particularly urgent.
Seattle's weakest link is the almost complete lack of heavy rail transit corridors, particularly the total absence of these to the east. The reluctance to address major bottlenecks (such as on I-5 downtown) is also a big loser. Fixing a light rail issue isn't going to change the traffic nightmare.
Great video! I had always thought an airport express line utilizing the existing BNSF rail right of way would be a slam dunk, hopefully Sound Transit considers this!
Why not just keep the valley line at grade, and dig out a few tunnels for cars and trucks under the train line at major intersections? That's what my city did (at grade trains, cars going underneath or having ~10 min traffic lights with barriers deploying for at-grade crossings) Then you'd have a fast train, not much in the way of interruptions, and minimal construction costs.
there are several wide intersections where an underpass would fit. On one side you could add a sidewalk/bike lane and then a ramp leading to the train platforms (easier with center platform). That way anybody can safely get to the train. Yes, cars may not be able to turn everywhere, but there are plenty alternative routes for them.
LOLz it's like we (Seattle area residents) don't know how to use existing infrastructure, ROW, and all that. What even are we doing here? We've got heavy rail, Link, and old ROW that isn't even being touched. It's all ridiculous that we're not doing what is being brought up.
A express line 3rd rail line from Int'l Dist. to Sea-Tac airport was always a better idea, but the funding/politics just weren't there...now, just imagine if the engineers had had the courage to adopt a mag lev tech instead of 150 yr. old elec. trolley tech...
4:00 South park and georgetown should never have existed. It sits only a few feet above sea level and floods every few years from king tides. climate change is only making that worse. they make good beer tho...
The other problem is unnecessary infill stations. Rainier valley is woefully underutilized with pathetic TOD to require another infill station to slow down the already slow segment. Infills in Boeign road is equally pointless. Even the 130th Pinehurst station is forecasted to have dismal ridership as the golf course is protected land and by law it cannot be developed unless an equal amount of parkland returned to the area. So it is American's first golf course with two light rail stations. amazing
Eliminate Rainier Beach station and tunnel there. then eliminate mount baker station and emerge there. All the other stations become tram stops Tacoma T line style
You again...how many times do we need to school you about Seattle? You once said "a regional trolley slower than freeway speeds surrounded by parking garages is not a recovery." which is blatantly untrue. The Link has a lot of grade-separation. The trains have a top speed of 58 miles per hour (93 km/h), but typically operate at 35 mph (56 km/h) on surface sections and 55 mph (89 km/h) on elevated and tunneled sections. Many stations aren't like that. Like the downtown tunnel stations, U District, Roosevelt, Beacon Hill, Capitol Hill, etc. And in Q1 2024, the Link had a weekday ridership per mile of 3,461, the highest weekday ridership per mile of any LRT system in the US! In 2023, the system had a ridership of 23.9 million, or about 94,500 per weekday as of the third quarter of 2024. This is on top of their expansion plans. So yes, the Link light-rail has recovered! And before you talk about capacity, I've seen Westlake be super packed, and one train be able to fit everyone at Westlake on board. "But they're legacy streetcar neighborhoods" the downtown tunnel stations, U District, Roosevelt, Beacon Hill, and Capitol Hill stations are all underground and were built for Link, that's the key thing. It wasn't legacy, it was built brand-new, and they did a darn good job at it. Those former streetcar neighborhoods were already there, but Link did the work to bring the transit back. It goes where people want to go, and TOD is planned and has been built for East Link. Obviously the system still has problems, but for a LRT system as big as it, it's better than others on the continent. Highest weekday ridership per mile in Q1 2024 for a US light-rail system.
I agree, at least on the valley line. 25mph is insane. That shit needs to be doing 60. Put up fencing and barriers, dig some crossings for cars/buses. The tram lines also deserve dedicated lights and traffic priority so they can haul ass.
Oh Seattle.. what coulda been if you just stuck with monorail. You're already elevating your light rail everywhere.. and monorail can go into tunnels like it does in Japan. I live in Tukwila and occasionally have to go to Lynnwood for work. If I drive, it takes me about an hour (even with moderate traffic). If I take the light rail, it would take me 2 hours and I would still need to transfer onto several buses to get to my end destination. That's not including the return time. It's dumb. The light rail is ok if I'm going to downtown or to the airport. But any further than that... I don't know why I wouldn't just drive. Edit: Yeah, monorail probably isn’t the best option, but saying monorail would have been a worse choice I think is a bit of a stretch. A modern monorail system could have been built to address the issues everyone’s raising. Egypt is building one right now. I just think it would have been cool for Seattle to lean into our history and embrace the monorail. It’s not like the light rail system we have doesn’t have its issues (as this video points out). Not like our light rail is the smoothest ride in town either.
The monorail would have been a far worse option run by people with zero experience in public transit at all. The transit project to mourn is the metro forward thrust proposal that would’ve given us the same rolling stock and tech as the DC metro
@@bistro-tat compared to what? Seattles monorail was built in 1962 and feels about as bumpy as our light rail system. I’m sure a more modern monorail could give a smoother experience.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The Duwamish bypass you created is basically what the forward thrust metro proposal was back in 1969 lol
@@dante_m I think it’s for the best ST opted to route via the Rainier Valley haha
@@thehouseoftransit2719 Me too, considering that the lack of RV service killed the first Forward Thrust proposal. There was another study from the 1980s that had a Duwamish section as well that was voted down so they came back with the RV segment later. The old planning and study documents are really interesting because that study from the 80s suggested two lines going south, one that went elevated on Rainier Ave down to the Tukwilia Sounder Station, and one that went through the RV, down SR99 to Star Lake.
For short term solution I really want ST to put fencing along the alignment and add crossing guards at every crossing so that train speed limits can be *increased*
That would just lead to a brightline situation of crashes.
@@TheJttvFlorida has much worse at grade crossings than Rainier valley
@ This isn’t Florida and the trains don’t go 100mph. We’re going to be adding wigwag flashing headlights to our trains soon too
@ Also, a lot of Brightline’s crossings are in really awkward positions and the overall crossing safety is just really low
The fact it isn’t elevated for all of its length makes the Link worthless.
When the 1 line was first being built in the 2000s, we questioned why it looped off course all the way into rainier valley, which had excellent bus service anyways at the time. I wish they built the bypass route from the start, and just utilized existing bus routes at the time to connect to the stations. Great video!
I love the buses but the link is way better. It's good that it goes through populated areas, it's not meant to be like a regional rail. But all the at grade crossings, without even gates at least, are inexcusable.
@ IIRC, it's because the community demanded that they not be used. I get the concern of not wanting the area to have a train yard feel, but there are other at grade parts of the system between Beacon Hill and the stadiums that do have more warnings.
SeattleSubway has this bypass express route on their vision map, which is heavy influencing Seattle's long range wish list, and makes sense to improve the speed of the regional spine. They also have the West Seattle branch going down to Tukwilla International Blvd which if that were to be extended first and run to the airport instead likely would also be a faster option than going via Rainier Valley as it'll likely be a fully grade separated route.
Where can I learn more
I was looking at this line the other day and wondered about the same bypass strategy, but your video is so much more detailed and fleshed out! Awesome work
Thank you! This video is extremely well researched! I was very surprised to see you mention the airport busway.
Another thing to note is that there is actually a siding to the south of SeaTac/Airport Station, so if it’s needed to save costs you can have a line end right there in the existing station and pull into the siding for turnarounds and layovers.
@@realquadmoo in the short term this would probably be the easiest way to operate the lines
This is a fantastic proposal! Great job!
We should make it a bill to the state congress to be completed by 2028
Grade separation is a must for reliable and safe light rail! Imagine doing this for Valley Metro Rail in Phoenix.
You can't fix stupid. There's no reason why there are all of these crashes, there are signs and there are alarms and yet, people can't figure out that there's a train coming. I do agree that it would have been better to just build this grade separated to begin with, but it was hard enough to get the funding to build this to begin with.
Shoreline suburbanite, I'm not excited for the one line to split which will cause me to need two+ seats to reach the airport. The split you propose would be a net time saver going to the airport which should garner more support than the people in the new line's walkshed. I like it!
i think an mlk bypass is a great idea! i think adding an extra line in this way would also help with the overcrowding we will no doubt see once link is extended to FW
Excellent idea! Something I've long thought of / hoped for. Hopefully ST is paying attention.
Some ideas that I've had since before they lay one foot of track, and some cool ideas that I never even came close to thinking of. Pretty exciting
If Seattle's record continues, they'll be on track to implement this by 2525!
I had this same idea, but I would pass the freeway corridor in Tukwila completely to avoid the curves, not to mention there is no station there. And there's is a compelling plot of land close to the Tukwila Library ( although will probably be developed soon)
Seattle needs to get its old tram network back desperately. Seattle is nearly as big and sprawling as Melbourne or Sydney, with almost none of the public transport, and no real distinction between trains, trams and light rail. Whatever the mode of transit the city has, it isnt enough
Fun Fact -Seattle bought 5 heritage trolleys from Melbourne decades ago, and ran a streetcar line along the waterfront. The cars were beautiful, and this was a successful tourist ride along the Seattle waterfront.
But in 2005 the city abandoned the Benson trolly line, never to return.
i have to give you credit - this is much more well-researched than most such proposals (i often see proposals that we decommission the rainier valley segment entirely and solely run a bypass... which...... ignoring massive minority communities because its kinda inconvenient? not a good look..). i do have notes, if i may!
1. a valley bypass has been proposed lots of times, with a major issue: south park and georgetown have, like, 10k people and and a few thousand jobs combined, while othello alone comes close to beating that. of course, sound transit's excellent track record with TOD would likely help with this, but this part is a clear reason why the 1 line is routed the way it is.
2. this is more of a nitpick, but saying link isnt rapid transit seems off to me. a small section of its route not being separated only slows the trip down by 5-10 minutes, and thats if youre passing through the area at all. through and north of seattle it still consistently outpaces every other form of transportation, and if theres traffic (which there almost always is) it does even through and past the rainier valley!
3. converting the existing track into a tramway isnt a bad idea, but link using it seems iffy to me. there was a recent study that showed that a trenched grade separation option would be the most cost-efficient, and if that cut into the lanes, it could retain existing tracks, which could be used as a tramway. we can do these things in tandem!
4. to better integrate with future projects and avoid redundancy that would drive up costs for minimal benefit, i would run (what, in my daydreaming, is the 5 Line) from seatac/airport, along the existing 1 line alignment instead of through central tukwila, and follow your route through downtown, but split off at SLU station and become the long-awaited aurora link project. this would make the 1 line's routing more efficient while giving the 5 line a more direct alignment
@@sdrx902 It’s certainly no wonder the line was routed where it was. The Forward Thrust proposal from the 60s had a line to Renton running via East Marginal Way, which… wasn’t the greatest alignment choice. That being said I do think South Park and Georgetown stations could perform alright with good development.
I was using “rapid transit” there as its secondary definition which is to say a fully grade separated heavy metro. Much of Link functions as that kind of rapid transit but it isn’t true rapid transit.
The study that came out a few months ago was kinda bogus but I do think there are a lot of good options for what can be done with the corridor.
You talk about not ignoring minority communities, but then you say that South Park and Georgetown are too small population wise to be deserving of light rail. So sure, let's keep ignoring the two most marginalized communities in all of Seattle. I think the proposal to serve these communities with non-car-dependent transit is long long overdue.
@@cobaltblue42 theres a difference between not serving communities in the hundreds of thousands and not serving communities in the... ones of thousands? like i said in my comment, i support doing this, but not at the cost of serving larger communities, which only adds, like, 3 minutes assuming grade separation
@ (in regards to the third paragraph) it was ? ...im a little relieved, i dont want a trench 😭
@ by your logic, almost all the new stations along the 1 line's north and south expansions shouldn't be built, since the local walksheds to many of those stations are in the low thousands. And there are few neighborhoods anywhere in the Puget Sound that have populations in the hundreds of thousands lol, and the time difference is a lot more than 3 minutes as pointed out in the video. Your arguments really don't hold muster and come off as an overt attempt to continue to ignore two marginalized minority communities that have been and continue to be overlooked by all levels of government for any sort of investment.
I’m not super familiar with Seattle’s system (yet), but this was a super well done video. I’m glad I discovered your channel through this contest, and I look forward to watching more of your videos!
But I will say for others in the comments that the problems your video talked with the at-grade light rail on MLK are not unique to Seattle. These sorts of problems frequently plague light rail systems that run at-grade. That’s one of multiple reasons why I strongly favor light rail to be grade-separated as much as possible. Yes, it’s more expensive to build, but it’s safer for everyone, provides faster trains, and therefore provides higher ridership (high enough that I wonder if the extra fare box revenue negates the extra cost of building grade-separated in the long run).
@@RallyingforRail There are also ways to do this style of light rail that are considerably safer. Systems in Alberta and Charlotte for example use much wider medians with fencing and crossing gates to keep traffic separate from the light rail lines. At the point that you start doing a lot of grade separation might as well build a proper metro
What's unfair is that the vast majority of Seattle's system is grade-separated. The only part that isn't is the section through one of the poorer areas of the city. Wealthier areas up north have subway stations.
@@garysimonson1135 To be fair, those wealthier areas also pay more in taxes to support the system. That's not to say that I'm a fan of any part of the system being at grade, but it's not like those other areas aren't contributing more to fund this or that there aren't a bunch of areas that have effectively been paying for service that they didn't have any use for. It was only last year that the stations got as far as I am, but we've been paying taxes to support this for decades at this point and there's other places that still haven't received an real advantage from the system, but are paying taxes the way that people that have benefited do.
I love this alignment idea!
Love it. I've wanted a bypass via Georgetown and South Park for yeeeears. There is so much right of way available already!
Great video! I love this idea! I hope this gets viewed by the correct officials
Metro could extend the A Line a couple stops up TIB for a super frequent and fast connection to the station, and then the bypass could branch from the Site B of BAR Station. This could also make the A Line more relevant and make less people suggest to get rid of it after FWLE is opened
This is a great idea and not a bad strategy in that is supports both local neighborhood development and airport to downtown connections. Doing both would not have been feasible early on.
@@ix830 Central Link attempted to do both but doesn’t accomplish either goal as well as it could
That's a really great solution for this. Excellent vid 👍
One note: The original ST plans wanted to have the trains elevated through MLK. It was the general public that demanded tunneling over the elevated trains as they deemed it too unsightly, and too long of a construction time. As the project didn't have enough funding for a massive tunnel at that time, they compromised for it to be at-grade.
Yeah... seriously, the residents REALLY didn't want elevated tracks.
Not a bad plan though. It would be nice of being able to build a better solution without affecting current routes. Plus, having two lines would allow better maintenance. Too bad, this likely wouldn't even start getting built until 2045 at the bare minimum.
@@lindsiria didn’t know this, thanks for sharing!
I lived in the valley all during proposal and construction. I bet you wouldn't vote in a hundred years for an elevated rail line to be put over your house and neighborhood if you had the possibility of something at grade or below. Just shocking that you talk like we were stupid not to want that.
This part should be grade separated and the entire Link Light Rail needs to be automated like Vancouver's Skytrain (along with 3-5 minute headways). This is the only way Seattle is going to catch up.
1:01 King County Metro Route 106 is a local bus route along the entirety of MLK.
@@realquadmoo True, but I’m sure a lot of the riders using it would prefer a tram stop
@ Well Link isn’t a Tram but theoretically you could extend Seattle Streetcar down Rainier to Mount Baker and then down MLK to a turnaround south of Rainier Beach. There are a ton of streets that would be great for a future streetcar network
@@realquadmooagreed! I think not going down Rainer was a mistake. And also we love the buses here!
@ Yeah, in reality I would much rather have Seattle Streetcar branch from Jackson and go down Rainier to Mount Baker and then continue going down Rainier, I think that since we have a local and limited service on MLK, Rainier would be much better for a new streetcar (and they are getting RapidRide R Line), but simply for the sake of this conversation I proposed MLK.
I’ve been saying this since the line first opened up. It’s so Seattle to want to build the slowest and sketchiest possible way for people to get from the airport to downtown in the name of social engineering (routing it through RV). It’s rarely quicker to take Link vs. driving. Hopefully something along these lines comes to pass. And if it routes through South Park and Georgetown, they better not add 5 stations between the airport and wherever it links up south of downtown. Seattle is a world class city, it deserves a world class rail system.
That depends where you're coming from. Most of the time when I've taken it, it's been about the same, just without the time spent worrying about parking or the additional cost to park.
I would expect them to eventually redo that section to raise that portion of the line up. It would be expensive and take some time, but for the period that's being done, they could probably run a shuttle to bypass that section.
I kind of like it but I'd rather have it a Line 1A (Rainier Valley) and a Line 1B (Georgetown/Duwamish) 1B would split as you mentioned, at the South Boeing Access Rd Station alternative but here lays the main issue I have - There is no easy way to cross the Duwamish River to access South Park and the guideway along Boeing Field/East Marginal Way must accommodate upwards of a 747-8 which isn't as bad as a bridge but at least 70 feet tall at multiple locations but long/wide column spacing of at least 240 feet wide to give room for the wingspan and tail at multiple locations.
One possible route would be straddling the West side of East Marginal Way South , closing S 104th Street to use as the guideway alignment, cross the river between S 98th Street and South 102nd Street, utilizing a bit of the Amazon property and follow Hwy 99 on the East side to 14th Ave S with a station between South Henderson St and South Trenton St to service the South Park community. This would allow enough room to build a bridge of 120 feet over the Duwamish and connect to E Marginal Way South before turning Corson Ave South, with a station straddling South Findlay St and South Homer St, along Corson Ave South and Airport Way South to serve the Georgetown community. Leaving this location, the guideway would go down 8th Ave South, over a bridge to the West of Airport Way South, then briefly follow the BNSF right of way along NW Containers. This can be joint freight railroad and light-rail operations or separated (freight only does switching at night here) before connecting into E-3 Busway.
This would then connect at the new SODO hub station that would service all 3 routes (Line 1A/B, Line 3). This would only require demoing the USPS Seattle Annex (which I believe is already slated for Line 3) for the new platform, construction of new crosswalks for ease of movement between both platforms.
Overall -
One playfield removed or modified (Georgetown) to accommodate station footprint.
4 commercial buildings removed, zero residential as far as I can tell
2 large bridges (One over Duwamish, one over BNSF), 1 small bridge (over Duwamish) - fully elevated until over the BNSF, grade separated surface running from BNSF main to ST 1 Line at Lander St.
SODO to Boeing Access RD - 10~ minutes w/3 elevated stations (BAR, South Park, Georgetown)
Designed for 55mph the 95% of the entire segment
Retains the 1A line with adding BAR and Graham Street Stations
Adds low waist level fencing and vehicle and pedestrian crossing gate arms along Rainier Valley - Increases speed to 35mph (10mph above road limit)
About 2 to 2.5 years of construction. Would utilize a guideway crane with precast girders to speed up construction timeline. On surface route, concrete ties and ballast, with a singular OCS pole in the middle of the 2 main tracks to reduce footprint and reduce cost until SODO station.
A guestimate on cost would be right around $1.25 to $1.625 billion for the 1B segment and about $50-80 million for the Rainier Valley items (including Graham Station). This is using the current national average for elevated light-rail construction and historical figures from Sound Transit, Tri-Met, LA Metro, and Phoenix METRO. Call it 2 billion and both would be done by 2036 if funded locally via LID or some other method of tax payment. The longest portion of this will be the EIS/design process of about 3 to 6 years. Yes, really.
If I understand correctly, the intention is to redirect the Link 1 Line on to the new, grade seperate alignment to access new areas of the city currently underserved by transit. Then, “Convert” the previous at-grade segment to something more akin to a Rainier Valley Streetcar, similar to the South Lake Union & First Hill Streetcars. Appears like a Solid agenda. Grade separating along MLK would not increase potential riders in the catchment area and could be considered “Throwing good money after bad”. However, with this proposal, transit coverage is increased and the prior investments are repurposed rather than abandoned.
Another person hit by the link near orcas st tonight
Not to be too cold hearted, but how stupid do you have to be to be hit by a train? It's not like they swerve out of the way or speed up unexpectedly and there's a bunch of lights and bells to warn people that they're coming.
@SmallSpoonBrigade first of all, there is not a lot of lights and bells in this case, that's one of the problems. There's not even gates that go down automatically, or even manual gates.
But also, numerous people get hit here and will continue to, no matter how anyone may rationalize that it's the victims fault. In a city, infrastructure needs to be designed for its human inhabitants, and that includes people who may otherwise get hit by a train.
@@muphart I forgot about that. IIRC, the community complained that they didn't want that when it was being designed. The stretch that's at grade that I've spent more time near is closer to the stadiums where there are lights and alarms when trains are coming.
Great video! An amazing proposal for a Airport bypass line that I'm a big proponent of. I think one annoyance is that if the bypass is built first, almost no way the Rainier Valley line ever gets grade separated. If the Rainier Valley line is grade separated first, it would be a huge disruption and almost no way the bypass or additional infill station on the Valley line get added. I think the Valley line would need to be tied into an extension to Renton or elsewhere (not redundant airport connection) to actually get grade separate after a bypass line (even though the replacement of the rental car bus is genius). I had previously seen a bypass line proposal that just went all the way up E Marginal Way and over to 4th to connect with the SODO line across the rail yard. That alignment would be way cheaper and probably less of a fight, but actually providing access for South Park and Georgetown directly definitely presents better than just bypassing Rainier Valley. Definitely a cool discussion.
@@jbteal I could see additional infills being added along with a bypass, though grade separation probably becomes less likely. A rail connection to Renton is warranted, whether via this line or another
I love this. If I could fund it I would.
As someone who couldn’t believe what final design of the light rail line became I have one question for you. If they couldn’t build it right the first time, what makes you think they’ll do it right the next time?
Also, eliminating that section of 99 won’t be nearly as easy as you think.
What makes me think they can do it right is they've demonstrated they can properly design light rail lines with the rest of the system. Outside of the Rainier Valley, Link far and away has the highest-quality light rail infrastructure of any system in the United States.
Removing 99 is as easy as we want it to be. There are plenty of alternatives.
@@thehouseoftransit2719 link light rail could have been so much more but there are people like you calling what we got a success is making it doomed for the future. I and others could spend hours showing the limitations of the design but you’ll never believe it. Because you don’t want to.
And no ripping up 99 won’t be as cheap or as easy as you think. Not even close.
That’s what I was thinking too
In my head this would be called the “Airporter” as it would stop near BFI and SeaTac. I love the idea to integrate the new terminal/rental car transit mode as well.
ST4? Let’s package this with a Golden Gardens to Magnuson route on the northside.
We need light rail to Renton. It’s ridiculous that is not currently being built or considered in anyway.
Yep, the “valley line” should be extended down to Renton.
This is so needed, as it stands the street level portion just ruins the amount of ridership the LR could have. What are people going to choose when going to the airport? A 20-40 minute car ride, or an hour long LR ride?
If we want less traffic we seriously need to prioritize removing the reliance on ride share cars (and pick up/drop off cars that are empty for half the leg) driving to the airport.
@@Ferret440 Ironically, Link will be more time-competitive for airport travelers coming from the southern suburbs than from Seattle itself!
Whenever I have looked at the time from where I live to the airport either via light rail or car, the difference has been either minimal or with light rail getting there faster. Perhaps if you live further from a station or closer to the airport that might be different, but there just hasn't been enough of a time savings by going via a car to justify then having to deal with the zoo at the drop off or parking.
I do wish they would install something more efficient to move people from the station at the airport to the terminal, but what we've got is actually pretty good, far better than what some other commenters seem to think.
i would love to hear ur comments on the tacoma dome expansion for the 1 line‼️ and tcc one too!
@@_some__guy_ I think taking the line so far south makes sense if trains can get into Seattle quickly! As currently planned that won’t really be possible.
As for the TTC streetcar expansion I’ve heard proposals to run the line down 6th which I think would be a lot more useful than the planned route on 19th. Either way it should have dedicated lanes
@@thehouseoftransit2719 I'm not sure speed is the major reason to have the Tacoma Dome extension. Having a way into the Seattle area that isn't focused on commuters (Sounder with its issues with using BNFS tracks) and the into Seattle AM trains and the out-of Seattle PM trains would benefit Tacoma. It could move shoppers to Seattle and air passengers to and from the airport (SEA). As a retired person, I would use it to get into Seattle occasionally and to the airport if need be. Right now I use Pierce Transit busses and the T line to get to medical appointments. Not having to drive on I-5 would be a major benefit to me personally and would help remove some traffic from the road. The Draft EIS for the Tacoma Dome Extension is currently out for comment.
@@kenglover2690 I absolutely agree! Link provides higher frequencies and better reliability than Sounder and express bus alternatives, but time-competitiveness is still key. Operating a line all the way to Tacoma via MLK Way just doesn’t really make sense
I think lack of proper bus service and sparse bus schedule (every 20-30min at peak times) serving the Link light rail is much bigger problem than anything else.
When is the 2 Line going to be up and running?
@@gregfawcett5152 the starter line is already open and will be extended to Redmond in May. The full connection across Lake Washington is projected to open by the end of the year!
@@thehouseoftransit2719 Thanks...hoping it will open sooner...
1. The alignment should be along commercial streets outside of town, not just simply be treated like a commuter rail along the existing interstate. 2. Street alignments should be elevated. 3. They need more frequent trains, not longer trains. Vancouver SkyTrain has 90 second(!) headways. Link 1 Line can barely make 10 *minutes.* 4. The station number thing is stupid. Nobody is going to use that. They're also setting themselves up for a mess if they ever add interstitial stations. Every metro in the world does fine with station names. 5. Screwing up the eastside connection to the main line is a horribly epic fail, especially considering how badly they've mangled the ST550. Now it's at least 20 months behind schedule for people to use the thing from the 2 line to the 1 line. 6. The line names are stupid especially when they're already coloring them -- just call them Green Line and Blue Line (although Central Link and East Link were already perfectly fine names too). 7. Why the hell are they wasting money running the 2 line with no connection to Seattle? Who is actually using that? There's no way that's remotely pragmatic. 8. Fundamentally, like nearly all other public services in the county, they need to be run by people who actually want to do things right instead of by people who want to hear an idea once and decide it's amazing and then pat themselves on the back for how forward-thinking they are, especially when half the bad proposals they come up with never even get finished.
It’s a great idea. But sound transit will never do it unfortunately. I hope I’m wrong.
@@Apollo580 From a fellow Apollo, have some more optimism!
Why not extend the line to Renton instead of running it to the airport
@justsamoo3480 Also an option, though there isn’t necessarily a good route between Rainier Beach and Renton so we tend to think a Sounder branch is the better option
@@thehouseoftransit2719 You could have a transfer point at Boeing access valley road with cross platform transfers and then have your proposed route going to the center of Tukwilla, while the Renton line continues down I-5, diverging from it at the mega I-5, 405 and state road 518 highway junction.
The line could then run along 405 to Renton or at a new elevated alignment through Westfield parking lots and Strander Blvd to Tukwilla Sounder station. From then on there are many options to reach downtown Renton. This line is a bit circuitous, however I don’t think it would impact the travel time too much, since It would be fully grade separated.
Another option is an alignment running down Interurban Avnue and then crossing the Duwamish river to reach the already existing railway alignment to Renton.
The link between SeaTac and the junction could be then be used for a new circumferential line between Federal Way/Tacoma to not only Renton but the line could also be extended down 405 or the old railway alignment to the current line 2/future line 4 running to Bellevue and South Kirkland
@@thehouseoftransit2719 instead of replacing the airport rental car bus (an amazing idea btw), take the Valley line south on International Blvd, interline through Tukwila International Station for the short east/west segment of the 1 line, split across I-5 to put a station at Strander/Andover Park, station adjacent to Tukwila Sounder, Station at Lind/19th, station at Grady/Lake near the future Renton Stride station, Station at Burnett/3rd, up Logan with a terminus near The Landing. Now you have a Renton/Rainer Valley Line
There is an interesting hill in between the two... Skyway
@@thehouseoftransit2719 What if they dig the power lines under ground and use that right of way for the light rail through Bryn Mawr-Skyway to reach Renton?
Being realistic, this line would be built by 2050. I do wonder it tunneling under mlk way would be the better alternative.
@@ikea_wizard tunneling under MLK would be a good long term goal, but it doesn’t really address the speed challenges as that segment still has a lot of stops
The current round of projects is set to be done by 2045 so that would probably happen around that time
Your plan makes FAR too much sense to get built in Seattle.
Placing tracks in the street for a system like this is usually the result of trying to satisfy everyone's concerns - with the end result not really making anyone happy.
Care to draw this out in a site like MetroDreamin for those that follow along better that way? Also would show who the industrial neighbors are who might have issues with pillars and whatnot.
@@SeaScrabbler The maps shown in the video are about all I’ve got, the intricacies of the route are up for interpretation
I just don’t understand how no one at ST foresaw the problem with such a long at grade section. 🤦♂️ it should have been an tennel, open top tunnel or elevated rail. It would have been more expensive, but definitely would haves saved lives and travel time.
It wouldn't save that much time. It's like 20 minutes along the stretch that's at grade all the way to the airport. You'd save like 10 minutes tops. Which does add up, but it's hardly the sort of time savings that people are suggesting.
I do think that they should eventually do something about it, but the reality is that it's not something that is or should be particularly urgent.
Seattle's weakest link is the almost complete lack of heavy rail transit corridors, particularly the total absence of these to the east. The reluctance to address major bottlenecks (such as on I-5 downtown) is also a big loser.
Fixing a light rail issue isn't going to change the traffic nightmare.
Great video! I had always thought an airport express line utilizing the existing BNSF rail right of way would be a slam dunk, hopefully Sound Transit considers this!
That’s a great idea which means Seattle will never do it.
they could do some upgrades to make it more of a light metro
Why not just keep the valley line at grade, and dig out a few tunnels for cars and trucks under the train line at major intersections? That's what my city did (at grade trains, cars going underneath or having ~10 min traffic lights with barriers deploying for at-grade crossings)
Then you'd have a fast train, not much in the way of interruptions, and minimal construction costs.
@@WahotsW Road underpasses require a lot of space that just doesn’t exist along MLK. It’d be much easier to move the tracks themselves
@thehouseoftransit2719 ahh, fair enough
there are several wide intersections where an underpass would fit. On one side you could add a sidewalk/bike lane and then a ramp leading to the train platforms (easier with center platform). That way anybody can safely get to the train. Yes, cars may not be able to turn everywhere, but there are plenty alternative routes for them.
LOLz it's like we (Seattle area residents) don't know how to use existing infrastructure, ROW, and all that. What even are we doing here?
We've got heavy rail, Link, and old ROW that isn't even being touched. It's all ridiculous that we're not doing what is being brought up.
They shouldn't have turned the Interurban Railroad into jogging trails.
A express line 3rd rail line from Int'l Dist. to Sea-Tac airport was always a better idea, but the funding/politics just weren't there...now, just imagine if the engineers had had the courage to adopt a mag lev tech instead of 150 yr. old elec. trolley tech...
4:00 South park and georgetown should never have existed. It sits only a few feet above sea level and floods every few years from king tides. climate change is only making that worse. they make good beer tho...
1:02 just take the 106
@@Seattlevids13 You could, but there’s no reason not to add stations and up zone more of the corridor
@ I feel like the Boeing access road is needed but graham & Kenyon are just for fun.
They should have NEVER made any part of the light rail at grade.
The other problem is unnecessary infill stations. Rainier valley is woefully underutilized with pathetic TOD to require another infill station to slow down the already slow segment. Infills in Boeign road is equally pointless. Even the 130th Pinehurst station is forecasted to have dismal ridership as the golf course is protected land and by law it cannot be developed unless an equal amount of parkland returned to the area. So it is American's first golf course with two light rail stations. amazing
"Save" it from what?
Eliminate Rainier Beach station and tunnel there. then eliminate mount baker station and emerge there. All the other stations become tram stops Tacoma T line style
World’s most expensive trolley.
You again...how many times do we need to school you about Seattle? You once said "a regional trolley slower than freeway speeds surrounded by parking garages is not a recovery." which is blatantly untrue. The Link has a lot of grade-separation. The trains have a top speed of 58 miles per hour (93 km/h), but typically operate at 35 mph (56 km/h) on surface sections and 55 mph (89 km/h) on elevated and tunneled sections. Many stations aren't like that. Like the downtown tunnel stations, U District, Roosevelt, Beacon Hill, Capitol Hill, etc. And in Q1 2024, the Link had a weekday ridership per mile of 3,461, the highest weekday ridership per mile of any LRT system in the US! In 2023, the system had a ridership of 23.9 million, or about 94,500 per weekday as of the third quarter of 2024. This is on top of their expansion plans. So yes, the Link light-rail has recovered! And before you talk about capacity, I've seen Westlake be super packed, and one train be able to fit everyone at Westlake on board.
"But they're legacy streetcar neighborhoods" the downtown tunnel stations, U District, Roosevelt, Beacon Hill, and Capitol Hill stations are all underground and were built for Link, that's the key thing. It wasn't legacy, it was built brand-new, and they did a darn good job at it. Those former streetcar neighborhoods were already there, but Link did the work to bring the transit back. It goes where people want to go, and TOD is planned and has been built for East Link. Obviously the system still has problems, but for a LRT system as big as it, it's better than others on the continent. Highest weekday ridership per mile in Q1 2024 for a US light-rail system.
It's actually pretty much a Subway at this point it has quite high Ridership and trains travel quite quickly on all other sections of the line
I agree, at least on the valley line. 25mph is insane. That shit needs to be doing 60. Put up fencing and barriers, dig some crossings for cars/buses.
The tram lines also deserve dedicated lights and traffic priority so they can haul ass.
100k people per day ride it and it is not even connected to the east yet. seems like a great tram then
Anyway you look at it its very slow. Its 70 minutes from Lynnwood to SeaTac. That's a distance of 27 miles. A little over 20 mph on average.
Oh Seattle.. what coulda been if you just stuck with monorail. You're already elevating your light rail everywhere.. and monorail can go into tunnels like it does in Japan.
I live in Tukwila and occasionally have to go to Lynnwood for work. If I drive, it takes me about an hour (even with moderate traffic).
If I take the light rail, it would take me 2 hours and I would still need to transfer onto several buses to get to my end destination. That's not including the return time.
It's dumb. The light rail is ok if I'm going to downtown or to the airport. But any further than that... I don't know why I wouldn't just drive.
Edit: Yeah, monorail probably isn’t the best option, but saying monorail would have been a worse choice I think is a bit of a stretch. A modern monorail system could have been built to address the issues everyone’s raising. Egypt is building one right now. I just think it would have been cool for Seattle to lean into our history and embrace the monorail. It’s not like the light rail system we have doesn’t have its issues (as this video points out). Not like our light rail is the smoothest ride in town either.
The monorail would have been a far worse option run by people with zero experience in public transit at all. The transit project to mourn is the metro forward thrust proposal that would’ve given us the same rolling stock and tech as the DC metro
The Monorail was an actual boondoggle that’s only purpose was to siphon support from the light rail.
No Monorails suck, the full scale Subway proposed in the 60s wouldve been better
Monorails have terrible ride quality. It would have been literally painful to ride.
@@bistro-tat compared to what? Seattles monorail was built in 1962 and feels about as bumpy as our light rail system. I’m sure a more modern monorail could give a smoother experience.